Narrative:

During a test flight I had been flying tracks parallel to the main runway at bzn; between 3.0 - 3.5 mi north and northeast of the airport for approximately 15 mins. I had maintained an altitude of 9500 ft MSL (5000 ft AGL) the entire time. During this time I was monitoring the radio frequencys of the bzn control tower (118.20) and ZLC (132.40). ZLC routinely hands off inbound IFR traffic to bzn tower with the statement 'numerous VFR targets in the area' but no details about potential traffic conflicts. Bzn tower has no radar and is unable to provide approach traffic separation services. In the incident today; ZLC was about to hand off an inbound crj to bzn tower and started to say 'numerous VFR targets' then corrected; saying '2 or 3 VFR targets near the airport; I think they are in the pattern.' that struck me as odd (and sloppy) because I was 5000 ft AGL and my transponder was working -- tpa is much lower than 5000 ft AGL; so I obviously was not in the pattern. ZLC then handed the crj off to bzn tower. When the crj crew contacted bzn tower they did not give a position report so I did not know where they were. Normally they approach from the south or southeast but I was looking anyway because sometimes they fly north of the airport. About 20 seconds later; I saw them about 1 mi away at my 12 O'clock position; headed towards me. I immediately turned to the right to avoid them and we passed with approximately 1/4 mi separation. Had I not taken evasive action we would have passed much closer. The area around the bzn airport has a relatively high level of single engine propeller traffic (including many student pilots) and a lot of jet traffic; both airline and private. There is radar on the airport property but no display in the bzn control tower and no approach/departure control. ZLC; the only facility with a display for the bzn radar site; routinely hands off inbound high speed traffic to bzn tower with only the statement 'numerous VFR targets in the area' but tower has no way to provide traffic separation. This seems like a situation that could result in a midair collision and likely will result in more near misses. The incident I experienced today was not dangerously close; but I feel it would have been if I had not been paying attention and took evasive action. On a related topic; it is relatively common for ZLC to hand off inbound high speed traffic to bzn tower when they are within 5 mi of the bzn airport. This frequently disrupts the VFR traffic near the airport as it does not give bzn tower sufficient time to 'make a hole' for the inbound aircraft. The result is that student pilots frequently are required to make awkward maneuvers in the traffic pattern. There was not enough local traffic today for this to be a problem but today ZLC handed off several planes too close to the airport and/or did not accurately convey the position of the inbound aircraft to the bzn controller. At one point; the crj had to go around because a bizjet popped up on a 3 mi final behind the crj. ZLC may not always have time to provide approach services but bzn has become busy enough that it seems imprudent to ignore this issue. It seems to me that either ZLC should provide better approach control service or bzn should get dedicated approach/departure control; much like the less busy missoula and great falls airports have. It might even make sense to make the airspace around bzn class C (currently it is class D). In any case; on numerous occasions; I have heard ZLC hand off high speed inbound traffic to bzn tower with only the 'numerous VFR targets' statement and it is not uncommon to have between 5-15 VFR aircraft within 10 mi of the airport when they do this. This does not appear to be a safe situation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 ON TEST FLT AT 5000 FT AGL NEAR BZN CONFLICTED WITH IFR ACR ARR; ZLC CTL TECHNIQUE AND LACK OF LCL RADAR LISTED AS CAUSAL FACTORS.

Narrative: DURING A TEST FLT I HAD BEEN FLYING TRACKS PARALLEL TO THE MAIN RWY AT BZN; BTWN 3.0 - 3.5 MI N AND NE OF THE ARPT FOR APPROX 15 MINS. I HAD MAINTAINED AN ALT OF 9500 FT MSL (5000 FT AGL) THE ENTIRE TIME. DURING THIS TIME I WAS MONITORING THE RADIO FREQS OF THE BZN CTL TWR (118.20) AND ZLC (132.40). ZLC ROUTINELY HANDS OFF INBOUND IFR TFC TO BZN TWR WITH THE STATEMENT 'NUMEROUS VFR TARGETS IN THE AREA' BUT NO DETAILS ABOUT POTENTIAL TFC CONFLICTS. BZN TWR HAS NO RADAR AND IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE APCH TFC SEPARATION SVCS. IN THE INCIDENT TODAY; ZLC WAS ABOUT TO HAND OFF AN INBOUND CRJ TO BZN TWR AND STARTED TO SAY 'NUMEROUS VFR TARGETS' THEN CORRECTED; SAYING '2 OR 3 VFR TARGETS NEAR THE ARPT; I THINK THEY ARE IN THE PATTERN.' THAT STRUCK ME AS ODD (AND SLOPPY) BECAUSE I WAS 5000 FT AGL AND MY XPONDER WAS WORKING -- TPA IS MUCH LOWER THAN 5000 FT AGL; SO I OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT IN THE PATTERN. ZLC THEN HANDED THE CRJ OFF TO BZN TWR. WHEN THE CRJ CREW CONTACTED BZN TWR THEY DID NOT GIVE A POS RPT SO I DID NOT KNOW WHERE THEY WERE. NORMALLY THEY APCH FROM THE S OR SE BUT I WAS LOOKING ANYWAY BECAUSE SOMETIMES THEY FLY N OF THE ARPT. ABOUT 20 SECONDS LATER; I SAW THEM ABOUT 1 MI AWAY AT MY 12 O'CLOCK POS; HEADED TOWARDS ME. I IMMEDIATELY TURNED TO THE R TO AVOID THEM AND WE PASSED WITH APPROX 1/4 MI SEPARATION. HAD I NOT TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION WE WOULD HAVE PASSED MUCH CLOSER. THE AREA AROUND THE BZN ARPT HAS A RELATIVELY HIGH LEVEL OF SINGLE ENG PROP TFC (INCLUDING MANY STUDENT PLTS) AND A LOT OF JET TFC; BOTH AIRLINE AND PVT. THERE IS RADAR ON THE ARPT PROPERTY BUT NO DISPLAY IN THE BZN CTL TWR AND NO APCH/DEP CTL. ZLC; THE ONLY FACILITY WITH A DISPLAY FOR THE BZN RADAR SITE; ROUTINELY HANDS OFF INBOUND HIGH SPD TFC TO BZN TWR WITH ONLY THE STATEMENT 'NUMEROUS VFR TARGETS IN THE AREA' BUT TWR HAS NO WAY TO PROVIDE TFC SEPARATION. THIS SEEMS LIKE A SITUATION THAT COULD RESULT IN A MIDAIR COLLISION AND LIKELY WILL RESULT IN MORE NEAR MISSES. THE INCIDENT I EXPERIENCED TODAY WAS NOT DANGEROUSLY CLOSE; BUT I FEEL IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF I HAD NOT BEEN PAYING ATTN AND TOOK EVASIVE ACTION. ON A RELATED TOPIC; IT IS RELATIVELY COMMON FOR ZLC TO HAND OFF INBOUND HIGH SPD TFC TO BZN TWR WHEN THEY ARE WITHIN 5 MI OF THE BZN ARPT. THIS FREQUENTLY DISRUPTS THE VFR TFC NEAR THE ARPT AS IT DOES NOT GIVE BZN TWR SUFFICIENT TIME TO 'MAKE A HOLE' FOR THE INBOUND ACFT. THE RESULT IS THAT STUDENT PLTS FREQUENTLY ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE AWKWARD MANEUVERS IN THE TFC PATTERN. THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH LCL TFC TODAY FOR THIS TO BE A PROB BUT TODAY ZLC HANDED OFF SEVERAL PLANES TOO CLOSE TO THE ARPT AND/OR DID NOT ACCURATELY CONVEY THE POS OF THE INBOUND ACFT TO THE BZN CTLR. AT ONE POINT; THE CRJ HAD TO GO AROUND BECAUSE A BIZJET POPPED UP ON A 3 MI FINAL BEHIND THE CRJ. ZLC MAY NOT ALWAYS HAVE TIME TO PROVIDE APCH SVCS BUT BZN HAS BECOME BUSY ENOUGH THAT IT SEEMS IMPRUDENT TO IGNORE THIS ISSUE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT EITHER ZLC SHOULD PROVIDE BETTER APCH CTL SVC OR BZN SHOULD GET DEDICATED APCH/DEP CTL; MUCH LIKE THE LESS BUSY MISSOULA AND GREAT FALLS ARPTS HAVE. IT MIGHT EVEN MAKE SENSE TO MAKE THE AIRSPACE AROUND BZN CLASS C (CURRENTLY IT IS CLASS D). IN ANY CASE; ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS; I HAVE HEARD ZLC HAND OFF HIGH SPD INBOUND TFC TO BZN TWR WITH ONLY THE 'NUMEROUS VFR TARGETS' STATEMENT AND IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE BTWN 5-15 VFR ACFT WITHIN 10 MI OF THE ARPT WHEN THEY DO THIS. THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A SAFE SITUATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.